Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The Morning Skate: Fighting, Head Shots on G.M.’s Agenda

By Stu Hackel March 9, 2009 1:10 pmMarch 9, 2009 1:10 pm

AP/Gerry BroomeMay I remove your helmet?: Carolina’s Tim Conboy, left, fighting Calgary’s Jim Vandermeer Friday night. At their meeting this week in Florida, N.H.L. G.M.’s will discuss banning fights in which a player loses his helmet as well as a number of other measures pertaining to fisticuffs and checks to the head.

One of the more interesting N.H.L. general managers meetings in many years begins today in Naples, Fla., with the highly publicized issues of fighting and head shots prominently featured topics of conversation. In previous years, this meeting occurred prior to the trade deadline, and the business of the league’s rules had to share the G.M.’s attention with their negotiation of deals to improve their teams. With the trade deadline now past, these and other competitive issues should get more focus.

No decisions on the rules governing these issues made by the 30 G.M.’s can be adopted by the league without first being passed by the Board of Governors, but this gathering is a necessary first step in any changes that might be enacted.

Publicly, at least, the G.M.’s are often a fairly united group on what they think is good for the game, but they may be a bit less unified this week.

Fighting is not expected to be banned by the G.M.’s — and as TSN’s Bob McKenzie, who is in Naples to cover the meetings, said this morning on Montreal radio Team 990’s “Morning Show,” even in many leagues where fighting means ejection from the game, that doesn’t stop fighting; however, if a league really wants fighting out, it would not only eject the player from that game but also suspend him for a few subsequent games, as is the case in the N.C.A.A., where, McKenzie notes, it is a very potent deterrent.

But there might be some separation here between Burke and others in the room. Colin Campbell, N.H.L. vice president of hockey operations, has said he wants a thorough discussion of the issue, and other G.M.’s, like Detroit’s Ken Holland, have said they also would welcome the discussion.
The N.H.L.P.A. has dispatched Paul Kelly, executive director, and Glenn Healy, director of player affairs and a former N.H.L. goaltender, to represent the players’ point of view on these issues at the meeting. Kelly spent a good deal of time this season canvassing his membership on issues pertaining to fighting as well as head shots.

The result of this discussion is anyone’s guess, but one outcome could be a crackdown on staged fights, in which two players decide beforehand to engage in fisticuffs as opposed to those fights arising spontaneously from the game. “The sense I get is there will be a lot of discussion on staged fights,” Bruins G.M. Peter Chiarelli told Shoalts in another story on the meetings published Saturday. “I’m against that. But no, I don’t see an outright ban on fighting.”

What are being called the “rules of engagement,” that is the conduct of fights, may also be the subject of proposed rule changes, sparked by the death in January of senior amateur player Don Sanderson, whose helmetless head hit the ice during a fight in December. Mandating fighters to keep their helmets on and having officials step in if a helmet is dislodged is one proposal that has a chance of getting the G.M.’s blessing. Even Burke says, “When you have a tragedy like Sanderson, you have to look at it.”

Ken Campbell in The Hockey News doubts seriously that the G.M.’s are really serious tackling any aspect of fighting. “My guess is they’ll spend a little bit of time paying lip service to fighting and things will continue on as usual until somebody dies at center ice in Madison Square Garden instead of in front of a couple hundred people in Brantford.”

Campbell continues, “There is absolutely no appetite at the upper reaches of the N.H.L. to even have a meaningful debate about the place of fighting and whether it still belongs in the game. The league seems to want to bypass that particular conversation altogether and instead talk about how to further govern fights.”

The head shot issue, which has been followed closely on this blog (prominently in posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) could be the subject of more discussion.

“We’re very comfortable with where the game is now, but we’re always willing to listen to new information,” Sharks G.M. Doug Wilson told Shoalts. “But we also have concerns with predator-type hits that I don’t think belong in the game. That to me is even more of a priority [than fighting]. We need discussion about blows to the head. I’m not sure we have complete closure on it yet. I’m looking forward to further discussions.”

The separation line in this discussion will be on the issue of deliberate hits to the head, as opposed to accidental contact to the head. The O.H.L. also has rules which penalize all contact to the head — deliberate or not.

Some in the N.H.L. believe it would be a mistake to prohibit all contact to the head. Last November on TSN’s “Off the Record,” N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman said, “If you say you can’t have contact with the head, you are going to reduce the amount of checking in the game and you are going to change the way the game is played.”

However, O.H.L. President David Branch has long maintained he has not seen any diminishing of physical play in his league since the rule was enacted three seasons ago.

It’s possible the N.H.L. will explore the approach taken in the American Hockey League, as opposed to the O.H.L.’s zero-tolerance rule. Last month, in a blog post on The Hockey News web site, A.H.L. President Dave Andrews explained the route his league has taken on head shots. In the A.H.L., any hit to the head judged to be deliberate results in a match penalty.

“Over the past five years, we have not found it particularly difficult to make that determination,” Andrews wrote. “This approach has had a very positive effect on the game in the A.H.L. and enhanced the safety of our players without sacrificing the physical nature of the game.”

Perhaps this has worked for the A.H.L. Andrews does not offer much detail on how the determination is made between deliberate and accidental head contact. But it’s unclear why there is a need for such a distinction if a player can accomplish the same thing with by checking an opponent’s shoulder or chest without risk of concussion. What is the purpose of continuing to allow hits to the head whether accidental or deliberate?

Hockey at all levels penalizes accidental stick fouls, but allows officials the option of penalizing deliberate stick fouls more severely. Why not apply the same logic to accidental hits to the head?

We’ll see if and how the G.M.’s separate on these issues as the meeting goes forward.

The G.M.’s will look at some other issues as well. Ken Holland has proposed a change in the tie-breaking procedure making regulation wins the first tiebreaker in the standings as opposed to just wins. (The Russian K.H.L. uses regulation wins as its first tiebreaker.) The thinking here is that a regulation win is more of an accomplishment than winning a 4-on-4 guaranteed-point overtime or the post-game skills competition.

There are also reportedly agenda items about the delayed penalty rule (changing it from possession by the offending team to requiring the team about to be penalized to clear the puck from its zone before the whistle is blown) and, in light of the one-game suspensions to Detroit’s Pavel Datsyuk and Nicklas Lidstrom, the mandatory All-Star Game participation rule.

The “Hockey Night in Canada” Hotstove Panel discussed these and even more agenda items on Saturday night during the second intermission (video). Ron MacLean at the end of the segment said they “didn’t touch on fighting, which will take up all of the meeting so none of the other stuff will come up.”

Fighting had its heyday back in the ‘good old days’ when players didn’t wear helmets, and jerseys were actual ‘sweaters’.

For a league that is having trouble attracting attention, it may seem counter intuitive to ban fighting. Nevertheless, I think widespread change is needed in the NHL in order to bring it into the mainstream:

1. No more fighting
2. Re-align the League towards Hockey hotbeds. Sorry, Florida.
3. Mid-season tournaments in off-market locations with trophies, etc.
4. Focus on international competition (i.e. Olympics, etc.)
5. Positively no one except for junkies follows the entire season. Shorten it.
6. Finals need to occur when there is ostensibly snow on the ground, even if it means interfering with March Madness or some other sporting event.
7. None of this will mean a hill of beans if the games can’t be seen. Get back on ESPN.

If the NHL is stupid enough to ban fighting, it will lose legions of longtime fans. There is no persuasive case to be made against fighting, and it has been a part of hockey for many, many decades. Keep it.

Want to bring in more fans? Then get rid of helmets – so that we can recognize our players the moment they step onto the ice as was the case before the 80s. Then we will have players to identify more closely with, rather than players who look like a poor man’s Imperial Star Trooper.

You write that, “last November on TSN’s “Off the Record,” N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman said, “If you say you can’t have contact with the head, you are going to reduce the amount of checking in the game and you are going to change the way the game is played.”

Bettman’s statement is shockingly ignorant and, in a way, captures the whole problem of his administration.

I am not sure where to begin other to say that if Bettman’s so concerned about the changing “the way the game is played,” then he need look no further than yesterday’s Rangers-Bruins game and the phantom hooking and holding penalties that were called. They were an embarrassment to the game.

Memo to Gary: The game has changed, and you and your administration have changed it to the point of absurdity. Checking has been taken out of the game, and it has to do with referees being afraid of reprimands by the “war room” in Toronto and players being afraid of penalties for the most trivial forms of contact.

Flying elbows to the head actually endanger a player’s well-being. Phantom hooking and holding calls put teams on powerplays and lead to more goal scoring. Which aspect of officiating and the way the game is played is more important to the NHL? Discuss among yourselves.

I am a lifelong hockey fan. The logic used to preserve fighting is fatally flawed. Other than boxing and “mixed martial arts” (I especially like the use of the word “arts” here), no sport worthy of the name sees fisticuffs as an essential ingredient of the competition. Fighting could easily be replaced by effective officiating, but the simple fact is that the NHL thinks fans like its product with fighting in, so fighting will stay in.

It’s also interesting to hear the “damage to competition” justification offered by some NHL managers for not banning hits to the head. Every other sport, including football, is recognizing the often permanent harm rendered to a player by concussions. There would be no less body contact in the game if hits to areas above the shoulders were banned outright and rigorously enforced.

Finally, wins in regulation should be awarded three points, wins in overtime two points, wins in a shootout one point; and no points for a loss at any time. What does considerable damage to competition is rewarding mediocrity and encouraging teams to play for a tie in regulation. Again, the current points system is designed only to keep as many teams “in the hunt” for a playoff spot as possible. It’s an economic rule; not one designed to encourage excellence.

Proper attention and redress of these issues has greater potential to make the NHL a major sport than any of the chicken-like measures being contemplated. Some may think the NHL “is in a good spot”, but they’re deluding themselves. On its present trajectory, the league could lose as much as a full handful of teams over the next couple of years. More intelligent stewardship is called for.

It’s sad to see the commissioner make decisions impacting the health of its players on financial grounds. The game would be fine without headshots and fighting. Different, but fine. Hell, you might even attract a few hockey fans.

I used to be a big fan of hockey but not of Ice Boxing. When they remove the fighting I’ll be a fan again. I’ll go to the games and cheer on TV. and encourage others to enjoy the sport. In the mean time, Absolutely not.

::::::::::::::
What is the purpose of continuing to allow hits to the head whether accidental or deliberate?
:::::::::::::

Perfectly phrased question, cause there is no answer.

The only argument the “tough guys” can use against banning hits to the head is the “fear” that if you ban hits to the head, you will eliminate hits altogether. Its a similar argument to “if you ban hits from behind, you will eliminate hits along the board altogether”. People will somehow become soooo afraid of a match penalty that they will simply stand around and poke check all day.

This is simply a reactionary fear, with no basis in reality. Players can be taught to throw body checks with their arms down. Players can be taught (and need to have it reinforced) that when throwing a hit on someone, you need to keep an eye out for players in a vulnerable position.

Honestly, as a hockey fan, its embarrassing to see these arguments debated as if theres some merit to them. You can have a sport that takes reasonable steps to protect its players, and still have it be hard hitting and physical.

I for one will be surprised if they come out Wednesday without a decision to penalize head shots, particularly because players do not want to be on the receiving end of those blows. And knowing full well that one of their players may be out for two weeks with a concussion due to a head shot, how would a general manager advocate for them?

Seriously, the one guy in the room who has never played the game of hockey IS Bettman. Let him lace’em up and take a few head shots, accidental, intentional, or incidental, and then get back to us. Bettman’s true frame of reference is that he has NO frame of reference for the game as played on the ice.

I have to believe even Bud Selig played Little League.

The lack of clarity on ruling on head shots is ridiculous. At least with fighting, we know what the rules are as defined by the rule book. Head shots? It’s like the rule book in NASCAR. They have one but you just are not allowed to see it.

I’m a long term hockey fan and admit that I do enjoy the hard hitting and occasional fight. That said, as players get bigger and faster, there’s a need for the violence to be “managed” before somebody else gets killed out there. The AHL & OHL have been pro-active in this area — time for the NHL to stand up and be counted.

To Dave (message #2), remove the helmets — that’s a great idea. You must have removed yours too many times.

You are dead on zorro!
Nice to see theres at least one TRUE hockey fan among all these pretenders. I like you am appalled at the direction the “new” nhl has taken turning this league into a basketball on ice complete with touch and phantom penalty calls all in a effort to artificially promote scoring as if all hockey fans want is high scores.
So much physical play, hitting, intensity, emotion and passion has been removed from the sport that it’s very hard to call this hockey without turning ones stomach.
I have followed this sport since 1978 but I no longer find it entertaining so as of December I have joined the millions of long time hockey fans and given up on the sport for now. I highly doubt that the sport will ever bring back the type of hitting and physical play that made me love it and I doubt under the current form of rules and refereeing that passion, intensity and emotion will ever be allowed to return either so unless another league is formed with “old time” rules and style of play or unless the AHL or ECHL ever stand up to the powers of the “new” nhl and change their leagues for the better you can consider me another FORMER long time hockey fan.

What's Next

About

Slap Shot, the New York Times hockey blog, reports on the Rangers, the National Hockey League and anything that glides quickly across a frozen surface anywhere on the globe, from the snowy prairies of Saskatchewan to the frigid steppes of Russia and beyond, like, say, Phoenix.

Archive

Recent Posts

Thank you for visiting Slap Shot. This blog’s regular features, including live game analysis, reader discussion, news and notes from Jeff Z. Klein and others, can now be found on the Hockey section front.Read more…

The Devils took Anthony Brodeur, an 18-year-old goalie, with the 208th pick of the 211-pick draft, sending their seventh-round pick in 2015 to the Kings in exchange for the chance to pick Brodeur. Read more…